Bryan Fischer
Homosexuals commit hate crimes, Part 4: Feds now guilty
By Bryan Fischer
June 3, 2011

Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"

"A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability." —

The following document came into my inbox yesterday, and according to the definition above, this document itself is a hate crime because it contains implied if not explicit threats against anyone who has deeply held religious convictions about what is sexually normal and dares to express them in a federal workplace.

The document, which you can read for yourself at this link (Guidance Regarding the Employment of Transgender Individuals in the Federal Workplace) tells everybody what's what when it comes to guys who work for the federal government and are so sexually confused they think they are actually women and want to wear dresses to work.

Bottom line: everybody has to let them do it, without a peep of complaint or protest. In fact, if you do complain, you'll be in big trouble. In fact, you will find yourself quite quickly the victim of a hate crime.

Says the document (emphasis mine):

"Employing agencies, managers, and supervisors should be sensitive to these special concerns and advise employees not to spread information concerning the employee who is in transition: gossip and rumor-spreading in the workplace about gender identity are inappropriate...personal information about the employee should be considered confidential and should not be released with the employee's prior agreement. Questions regarding the employee should be referred to the employee himself or herself."

If Bob starts calling himself Shirley and wearing pumps and earrings to work on a full-time basis, and you mention this to a co-worker without Bob's permission, you're in big trouble, Buster, especially if you indicate any disapproval of Bob's actions and any concern about the impact this will have on Bob's wife and children. You will be charged with "gossip and rumor-spreading," of doing something "inappropriate," and you will of course have to face certain consequences for your actions.

And if you actually do what the guidelines instruct you to do, and go up to Bob and talk to him yourself, and express your concern over his sexual confusion and the path he has chosen to walk, I predict you will be charged with creating a hostile work environment so fast it'll give you a nose bleed.

Now the guidelines do not spell out the punishment you'll receive for your bigotry, no matter how lovingly expressed, but the threat is clear. Your punishment will certainly involve some form of reprimand, some note in your personnel file, and possible or even likely termination.

Further, if you continue to refer to your sexually confused co-worker by his birth name and his biologically and scientifically correct pronoun, you'll get in even more trouble:

"Continued intentional misuse of the employee's new name and pronouns, and reference to the employee's former gender by managers, supervisors, or coworkers may undermine the employee's therapeutic treatment, and is contrary to the goal of treating transitioning employees with dignity and respect. Such misuse may also breach the employee's privacy, and may create a risk of harm to the employee."

Since you will be undermining his therapeutic treatment, and failing to treat your employee with what they call dignity and respect, and since you will be endangering the safety of your colleague and invading his privacy, you must be dealt with, and dealt with forcefully. Your deeply held religious, biological, and scientific views will require you to be punished.

It's worth noting that the American Psychiatric Association still considers transgenderism a "mental disorder," essentially a form of mental illness. But if you suggest to your colleague that you agree with the APA, and encourage him to get counseling for his condition, you're the one who will get in trouble. Big trouble.

In other words, you will be the victim of a hate crime. Whatever action is taken against you will be "motivated by prejudice against (your) religion."

In fact, the entire document explaining these guidelines is a hate crime in and of itself, because it threatens any employee who expresses his religious reservations about transvestitism, transsexuallism, and transgenderism at work. This whole document consists of "threats...motivated by prejudice against someone's...religion."

Not only must you not invade your colleague's privacy by mentioning his new wardrobe, you must allow him to invade your privacy anytime he pleases.

Your cross-dressing colleague — a male in every cell of his body — must be allowed access to the women's restrooms and locker rooms as he sees fit. You think I'm making this up? Read it and weep:

"...[A]gencies should allow access to restrooms and (if provided to other employees) locker room facilities consistent with his or her gender identity. While a reasonable temporary compromise may be appropriate in some circumstances, transitioning employees should not be required to have undergone or to provide proof of any particular medical procedure (including gender reassignment surgery) in order to have access to facilities designated for use by a particular gender."

You got a problem with that, because your religious convictions teach you that there are just two genders — "male and female" — and not three, four or five, and if your religious convictions teach you that the privacy of each gender ought to be protected, you'll get punished. If you're a woman, and you've got a problem with a man using your restroom and locker room just because he wants to wear a dress to work, you're the one who will get in trouble.

In other words, you will be the victim of a hate crime.

And here is the sneaky and particularly perverse part. This document will break federal law by recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) clearly defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of federal law and spousal benefits.

But these new guidelines trash all that by providing de facto recognition to what will have become same-sex marriages. Again, read it and weep:

"If the employees in transition are validly married at the time of the transition, the transition does not affect the validity of that marriage, and spousal coverage should be extended or continued even though the employee in transition has a new name and gender."

In other words, since all personnel records must be edited to include the transgendered individual's new name and sexual identity, Bob, who was married to Tiffany before getting all sexually weirded out, is now Shirley but he is still married to Tiffany. He must be referred to as Shirley and his marriage to Tiffany must be recognized and benefits correspondingly awarded. Presto chango, homosexual marriage.

You got a problem with that, and have the antiquated notion that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and believe the antiquated notion that the law should be followed, well, once again, you are the one who's in trouble and you will soon become the victim of a hate crime.

So Christian and Jewish and Muslim employees who work for the federal government, beware. Your deeply held moral and religious convictions about the abnormality of homosexual behavior are about to make you the victim of a fresh wave of hate crimes. The homosexual lobby has a new cudgel, and they're coming after you.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

© Bryan Fischer


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)


Stephen Stone
HAPPY EASTER: A message to all who love our country and want to help save it

Stephen Stone
The most egregious lies Evan McMullin and the media have told about Sen. Mike Lee

Siena Hoefling
Protect the Children: Update with VIDEO

Stephen Stone
FLASHBACK to 2020: Dems' fake claim that Trump and Utah congressional hopeful Burgess Owens want 'renewed nuclear testing' blows up when examined

Jerry Newcombe
Trying to gut the court?

Curtis Dahlgren
Comments on a hot tin (sloping) roof, at age 82

Stanley Zir
Message from Stan Zir

Steve A. Stone
The rage

Michael Bresciani
Kamala: Biden 2.0 - Same stuff different day

Cherie Zaslawsky
Two shooters, one location!

Frank Louis
Just what part of this is everyone missing? Say it ain’t so, Joe

Linda Goudsmit
CHAPTER 28: Pantheism, Gnosticism, and Marxism

Victor Sharpe
A two-state solution – but on both sides of the River Jordan

Jerry Newcombe
Providence and America

Cherie Zaslawsky
The shot heard 'round the world': Once & future President Donald J. Trump miraculously survives assassination attempt!

Tom DeWeese
The dangerous delusion of Biden and world leaders of transition to ‘just electricity’
  More columns


Click for full cartoon
More cartoons


Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
Fr. Tom Bartolomeo
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites